Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Limits of Traditional Approaches to Informed Consent for Genomic Medicine

  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that it will be important for new genomic technologies to recognize the limits of traditional approaches to informed consent, so that other-regarding implications of genomic information can be properly contextualized and individual rights respected. Respect for individual autonomy will increasingly require dynamic consideration of the interrelated dimensions of individual and broader community interests, so that the interests of one do not undermine fundamental interests of the other. In this, protection of individual rights will be a complex interplay between individual and community concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adashi, E. Y., Geiger, H. J., & Fine, M. D. (2010). Health care reform and primary care—The growing importance of the community health center. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362(22), 2047–2050. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1003729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arato v. Avedon, 5 Cal.4th 1172, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 131, 858 P.2d 598 (Cal. 1993).

  • Boyer, B., Mohatt, G., Pasker, R., Drew, E., & McGlone, K. (2007). Sharing results from complex disease genetics studies: A community based participatory research approach. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 66(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

  • Dresser, R. (1984). Bound to treatment: The ulysses contract. Hastings Center Report, 14, 13–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. (1995). Dworkin on dementia: Elegant theory, questionable practice. Hastings Center Report, 25, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s dominion: An argument about abortion, euthanasia and individual freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2001).

  • Firlik, A. D. (1991). A piece of my mind. Margo’s logo. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 265(2), 201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaylin, W., & Jennings, B. (2003). The perversion of autonomy, revised and expanded edition: Coercion and constraints in a liberal society. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamer, D., & Copeland, P. (1995). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior. New York, NY: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J. (1990). What about the family? The Hastings Center Report, 20(2), 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, T., Diamond, R., & Wikler, D. (1984). Is there a case for voluntary commitment? In T. L. Beauchamp & L. Walters (Eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics (2nd ed., pp. 163–167). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois v. Mother Doe (In re Baby Boy Doe), 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).

  • Ingram, M., Sabo, S., Rothers, J., Wennerstrom, A., & de Zapien, J. G. (2008). Community health workers and community advocacy: Addressing health disparities. Journal of Community Health, 33(6), 417–424. doi:10.1007/s10900-008-9111-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, B., Eng, E., Schulz, A., Parker, E., & Satcher, D. (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, B., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, N., Henderson, G., & Stein, J. (1999). Beyond regulations: Ethics in human subjects research. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natanson v. Kline, 350 P. 2d 1093 (Kan. 1960).

  • Korsgaard, C. (1996). Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lauderdale, J., & Miller, J. (2009). Standards of practice for culturally competent nursing care: A request for comments. Transcultural, 20(3), 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (1993). The nurse under physician authority. Journal of Medical Ethics, 19(4), 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (1994). The concept of autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31(2), 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (1995). Sovereignty and international order. Ratio Juris, 8(3), 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (1997). On Raz and the obligation to obey the law. Law and Philosophy, 16(1), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (1998). Autonomy, authority and moral responsibility, vol. 33. Law and Philosophy Library. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • May, T. (2005). The concept of autonomy in bioethics: An unwarranted fall from grace. In J. S. Taylor (Ed.), Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (2012). Rethinking clinical risk for DNA sequencing. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 12(10), 24–26. doi:10.1080/15265161.2012.699152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, T., & Spellecy, R. (2006). Autonomy, full information and genetic ignorance in reproductive medicine. The Monist, 89(4), 466–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKie, R. (2001). Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians. The Observer.

  • Mello, M. M., & Wolf, L. E. (2010). The Havasupai Indian tribe case—Lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(3), 204–207. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1005203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 31(6), 684–697. doi:10.1177/1090198104269566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008a). The theoretical, historical, and practice roots of CBPR. In Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes, 2nd ed. (pp. 26–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008b). Introduction to community-based participatory research: New issues and emphases. In Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes (pp. 5–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Ochoa, E. R, Jr, & Nash, C. (2009). Community engagement and its impact on child health disparities: Building blocks, examples, and resources. Pediatrics, 124(Suppl 3), S237–S245. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1100L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (1995). Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1990). Practical reason and norms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. F., Loup, A., Nelson, R. M., Botkin, J. R., Kost, R., Smith, G. R, Jr, et al. (2010). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE, 5(1), 5–17. doi:10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safer v. Pack, 291 N.J.Super. 619, 677 A, 2d 1188 (N.J. Ct. App. 1996).

  • Salgo v. Leland Stanford Etc. Bd. Trustees, 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957).

  • Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1914).

  • Schneider, C. (1998). The practice of autonomy: Patients, doctors, and medical decisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, N. (2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE, 2(1), 31–41. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.1.31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, T. (2014). Why does the search for a gay gene freak everyone out? Slate.

  • Spellecy, R. (2003). Reviving Ulysses contracts. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 13(4), 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, K., Kerridge, I., & Little, M. (2012). Savior siblings, parenting and the moral valorization of children. Bioethics,. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.02001.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (1976).

  • Wolf, S. (1996). Feminism in bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, R. P. (1970). In defense of anarchism. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerhouni, E. A. (2005a). Translational and clinical science—Time for a new vision. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(15), 1621–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerhouni, E. A. (2005b). US biomedical research: Basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA, 294(11), 1352–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zusevics, K. (2013). Ancillary care, genomics, and the need and opportunity for community-based participatory research. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 13(2), 54–56. doi:10.1080/15265161.2012.754065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Work on this paper was supported by the Program in Genomics and Ethics at the Medical College of Wisconsin. The Program in Genomics and Ethics is funded by the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Thomas May, Kaija L. Zusevics, Arthur Derse, Kimberly A. Strong, Jessica Jeruzal, Alison La Pean Kirschner, Michael H. Farrell & Ryan Spellecy

Authors
  1. Thomas May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaija L. Zusevics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arthur Derse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kimberly A. Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jessica Jeruzal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alison La Pean Kirschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael H. Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ryan Spellecy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas May.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

May, T., Zusevics, K.L., Derse, A. et al. The Limits of Traditional Approaches to Informed Consent for Genomic Medicine. HEC Forum 26, 185–202 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-014-9247-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-014-9247-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation